BC homeowner fights strata over renos, ends up owing over $48K

A BC homeowner got much more than he bargained for after initiating a legal fight against his strata for acting “significantly unfairly” toward him when he applied for alterations and renovations.

According to a BC Civil Resolution Tribunal Dispute, JT, who owns a strata unit, claimed that management initially approved the alterations he wanted to make to his unit, but then the strata changed its mind. He added that the strata never gave valid reasons to refuse his alterations.

JT asked for several orders from the tribunal, including approval of his proposed alterations, asking the strata to hold a meeting to replace some or all council members, asking the strata to bear its own costs for the legal dispute, reimbursement of his legal fees, approval of the installation of a doorbell camera, an apology to him from the strata and council, and reimbursement of $180,000 in damages.

In defence, the strata said that JT made alterations that went beyond what it approved, including an alteration to ventilation ducting, which it said was common property. It added that JT didn’t obtain a building permit to make the alterations. The strata also noted that the City ordered the strata to return the ducting to its former position, and the strata did.

The strata said that JT breached bylaws with his actions and argued that he was liable for expenses, including returning the alterations to their original form. The strata claimed $43,036.84 for costs relating to the alterations and an additional $27,893.32 in legal fees.

This was a massive case for the tribunal, which included hundreds of pages of evidence, plus more information in the form of emails and reports.

You might also like:
• Doorbell cameras become point of contention at BC strata
• New Yaletown hotel opens in former office space
• How much money are Metro Vancouver mayors earning?

How it started

In March 2021, JT signed a contract to purchase and sell his strata unit. He was set to take possession on June 1, 2021. On March 22, he emailed the strata about renovations. Still, the strata manager told him he would have to wait until he took possession of the property to apply for alterations.

JT did wait and, on June 24, 2021, provided his submissions for the alterations. Council members had concerns about the proposed alterations, including using his relative as a structural engineer; however, JT said it was a distant cousin. His submissions also included removing a wall featuring stove ventilation ducting, which was connected to the unit above.

After a bit more back-and-forth, JT received an email on June 30 informing him his renovations were approved. Renovations began the following week, and contractors removed kitchen appliances, the sink, cabinets, and the kitchen wall.

On July 27, owners of the unit below JT’s unit reported cement or grout leaking from their ceiling onto their stove. On July 28, two council members began to investigate and were immediately concerned with the relocated ducting. The council suggested that the change was unapproved and exceeded what was agreed upon.

JT received a stop work order on July 29.

On September 25, JT was fined $200 for unauthorized alterations and ordered to repair the damage by October 25. On October 14, JT emailed the strata a new application, including drawings that included some specifications about the venting.

“At this point, the parties disagreed about what the strata had initially approved,” the tribunal said. The parties also disagreed about whether or not JT could use the same workers.

On November 5, JT was informed his application was denied because he planned on using the same workers. On November 25, the strata wanted the unit returned to its previous state. In early 2022, the strata told the BC homeowner he could make a new application after it restored fire suppression between his lot and the unit below.

How it ended

Throughout 2022, there was more discussion about how much damage was done to the unit. JT attempted to get his own permit from the City, but the City informed him that it couldn’t do that without approval from the strata.

After more administrative counsel between everyone involved in the case, work began again in August 2023. The City inspected the work on September 1, 2023, and found deficiencies that needed to be fixed. As of March 2024, the unit remained unfinished.

The tribunal found that the strata didn’t act unfairly toward JT and dismissed his claim that the strata should approve his doorbell camera as it violated the privacy of other owners.

After the tribunal sifted through various invoices and expenses, it ordered JT to pay the strata a total of $48,025,58, including $23,299.28 in general expenses and $24,726.30 in tribunal-related fees.

The BC tribunal has more information about how the expenses broke down between the BC homeowner and the strata.